Should the red cross live effectively paycheck to paycheck? I think that is a positive of them, if anything, that they effectively manage their money and have reserves available so it isn't, "Holy crap, we need a bunch of stuff, lets sit around and wait until the hat is finished being passed, or take out loans for everything.

Maybe they should go down to the payday loan place every time there is a disaster.

Carousel Beast:Why is anyone surprised by this? This is the same organization that wanted to spend their 9/11 earmarked donations on a new national phone system.

This is the same organization that kept running blood drives in the two weeks after 9/11 despite the fact they were so overcapacity that they were sending the blood straight from the drives to medical incinerators.

There's a reason that Red Cross Liaison is considered punishment duty for most hospitals.

LineNoise:Maybe they should go down to the payday loan place every time there is a disaster.

I was just thinking that subs is a moron since the day of the disaster the Cross was there and feeding close to 1000 people that first night, and then quadruple that the next day. Of all the charitable entities out there, the Red Cross is one of the few who can respond with lightning speed and with impressive resources.

LineNoise--the money we give right after a disaster is not intended to fund normal day-to-day operations, but to respond to that disaster. Nine months later, it's a reasonable criticism to wonder why 2/3rds of that money is still at the Red Cross and not having helped the victims through the winter.

Giving specifically to one disaster is almost as ineffective as sending clothes. Too much money collected with nothing to spend it on will mean people complain. Giving out all the money just to spend it will mean people will complain Fraudsters will try and get money regardless.

BitwiseShift:Who makes more: The CEO of the non-profit government-chartered American Red Cross or the CEO of the manly, rogue boy of a non-profit the NRA. $651.957 vs $972,000.

I generally hate the Red Cross, it is a carry over from my days teaching the Red Cross learn to swim program in Canada. But this doesn't bother me that much. I mean sure it is a crazy amount of money. But who do you think has the harder job? Plus I am sure they could pay less, but with a job like CEO of the red cross do you want someone who is competent, or someone who is willing to take the amount of money you have?

Of course, to be honest, I didn't give to the Red Cross after Sandy or the hurricane in OK. After the re-election of Obama, I've decided it's the government's job to take care of people, so private charity should step down.

drb9:LineNoise--the money we give right after a disaster is not intended to fund normal day-to-day operations, but to respond to that disaster. Nine months later, it's a reasonable criticism to wonder why 2/3rds of that money is still at the Red Cross and not having helped the victims through the winter.

drb9:LineNoise--the money we give right after a disaster is not intended to fund normal day-to-day operations, but to respond to that disaster. Nine months later, it's a reasonable criticism to wonder why 2/3rds of that money is still at the Red Cross and not having helped the victims through the winter.

One third. They've spent 2/3rds, they have 1/3 remaining.

Let's contrast to some other efforts (found on the third page of the article)The Hurricane Sandy New Jersey Relief Fund, led by Mary Pat Christie, the wife of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, raised $32 million after the storm but didn't begin awarding grants on a large scale until April. So far, it has given about $11 million, with the biggest grants going to local organizations building or repairing housing.

The United Way, which raised $9.7 million in a Sandy recovery fund for New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and some parts of Pennsylvania, said it has spent about $4 million of that total to date, though another $2.5 million is set to go out soon.

drb9:LineNoise--the money we give right after a disaster is not intended to fund normal day-to-day operations, but to respond to that disaster. Nine months later, it's a reasonable criticism to wonder why 2/3rds of that money is still at the Red Cross and not having helped the victims through the winter.

because they used that day to day money to fund whatever they did in crisis.

I've seen them respond to fires here while the fire was still going. They were here for sandy before the rain even let up. If they weren't spending money, period, you'd have a criticism to make,

However its like saying you gave me a check for my wedding, so i could put the money towards a honeymoon or a house or something, and getting pissy because I just deposited in my savings account, and a couple of days later spent that amount of money on a new blender, instead of putting it in an account that could only be used to buy that house, even though I would have spent that money on the blender regardless of your gift.

xria:drb9: LineNoise--the money we give right after a disaster is not intended to fund normal day-to-day operations, but to respond to that disaster. Nine months later, it's a reasonable criticism to wonder why 2/3rds of that money is still at the Red Cross and not having helped the victims through the winter.

110/303=36% left. Where are you getting 2/3rds left from?

Reading fail. Sorry. I read an article that, "Seven months after Superstorm Sandy, the Red Cross still hasn't spent more than a third of the $303 million it raised to assist victims of the storm, a strategy the organization says will help address needs that weren't immediately apparent in the disaster's wake." That sentence is actually ambiguous--did the Red Cross spend 1/3 or 2/3? Anyway, sorry for not RTFA.

and the blood drive things are more for awareness than anything. The thought being, sure, you don't need all that blood, but if it gets a few people into the habbit of donating regularly, great. Not to mention that at the onset of things, you may not have a handle on what exactly you need. Were storage facilities compromised that you are unaware of at first? Is something going to happen shortly afterwards that you may be unprepared for?

I mean its kind of silly to fault the red cross for being safe rather than sorry.

Satanic_Hamster:Carousel Beast: Why is anyone surprised by this? This is the same organization that wanted to spend their 9/11 earmarked donations on a new national phone system.

This is the same organization that kept running blood drives in the two weeks after 9/11 despite the fact they were so overcapacity that they were sending the blood straight from the drives to medical incinerators.

There's a reason that Red Cross Liaison is considered punishment duty for most hospitals.

Generally the very first donation from an individual is tested extensively, little of it is used. What the Red Cross is interested in is consistent donors who give regularly so that testing cost can be reduced. So when an emergency happens and people get in line to donate, Red Cross will accept these donations because they hope it encourages someone to become a future donor, but they don't have the facilities to test all of that new blood from new people. Or they could just not test it all and give everyone HIV..

IdBeCrazyIf:LineNoise: Maybe they should go down to the payday loan place every time there is a disaster.

I was just thinking that subs is a moron since the day of the disaster the Cross was there and feeding close to 1000 people that first night, and then quadruple that the next day. Of all the charitable entities out there, the Red Cross is one of the few who can respond with lightning speed and with impressive resources.

Some guys from the local VFW post went to West, TX the day after the explosion. They normally do cookouts for fund raisers locally and then donate the funds to charities, but when something hits locally they usually road trip and cook food for people who have been affected. Seemed like a good thing to do and an excuse for a bunch of 50-60 year olds to road trip. They packed up, rode off and set up shop making breakfast burritos in the morning and burgers at night for as many as they could feed.

Every single day the Red Cross came by requesting half of the several hundred burritos saying they would help distribute the food, as the Red Cross simply didn't bring enough food themselves. They, the VFW group, happily gave the Red Cross that food only asking for them to let the folks of West know the VFW supported the area and were there making food, and to point the people to where their tents were set up if they or their children were hungry or thirsty as they pretty much ran all day and well into the evenings.

Then the nightly news rolled and of course the Red Cross took credit for everything. I figure this is the norm as it is the third time it has happened in as many years.

The Red Cross obviously have a chance to do a lot of good, but it seems the operation is muddled. Non-profits have an increasing amount of scrutiny when it comes to their spending, and we shouldn't be lenient when it comes to dollars that every day civilians put into these organizations. Expecting most of my $50 to go to food, shelter, or emergency funds isn't asking too much. It shouldn't take months and half of that original donation in operating costs to get that family $25 worth of food stuffs. And giving them access to funds via text makes it that much easier. No more door-to-door collecting or phone drives. This should only help to expedite peoples money going to where it is needed instead of just floating around in a non-profits coffers.

MindStalker:Generally the very first donation from an individual is tested extensively, little of it is used. What the Red Cross is interested in is consistent donors who give regularly so that testing cost can be reduced. So when an emergency happens and people get in line to donate, Red Cross will accept these donations because they hope it encourages someone to become a future donor, but they don't have the facilities to test all of that new blood from new people. Or they could just not test it all and give everyone HIV..

Yep; that was the logic. They knew that nearly all the donations would be destroyed solely for storage reasons alone. They weren't even testing them. It was the hope of getting people into the habit which was their goal.

I know my father was ticked they weren't telling the collection stations to push for plasma and platelet donations, though.

mechgreg:BitwiseShift: Who makes more: The CEO of the non-profit government-chartered American Red Cross or the CEO of the manly, rogue boy of a non-profit the NRA. $651.957 vs $972,000.

I generally hate the Red Cross, it is a carry over from my days teaching the Red Cross learn to swim program in Canada. But this doesn't bother me that much. I mean sure it is a crazy amount of money. But who do you think has the harder job? Plus I am sure they could pay less, but with a job like CEO of the red cross do you want someone who is competent, or someone who is willing to take the amount of money you have?

Large amounts of money does not equate to competency. There are plenty of other CEOs that have made much larger sums of money and been incompetent as well.

>$500,000 should be more than adequate to find someone who is not only competent, but also believes in the cause.

Caucasian:mechgreg: BitwiseShift: Who makes more: The CEO of the non-profit government-chartered American Red Cross or the CEO of the manly, rogue boy of a non-profit the NRA. $651.957 vs $972,000.

I generally hate the Red Cross, it is a carry over from my days teaching the Red Cross learn to swim program in Canada. But this doesn't bother me that much. I mean sure it is a crazy amount of money. But who do you think has the harder job? Plus I am sure they could pay less, but with a job like CEO of the red cross do you want someone who is competent, or someone who is willing to take the amount of money you have?

Large amounts of money does not equate to competency. There are plenty of other CEOs that have made much larger sums of money and been incompetent as well.

>$500,000 should be more than adequate to find someone who is not only competent, but also believes in the cause.

You would think that someone competent would come from the private sector and would have been successful enough that they could head the Red Cross as an act of charity and not collect a cent of salary.

dwrash:Caucasian: mechgreg: BitwiseShift: Who makes more: The CEO of the non-profit government-chartered American Red Cross or the CEO of the manly, rogue boy of a non-profit the NRA. $651.957 vs $972,000.

I generally hate the Red Cross, it is a carry over from my days teaching the Red Cross learn to swim program in Canada. But this doesn't bother me that much. I mean sure it is a crazy amount of money. But who do you think has the harder job? Plus I am sure they could pay less, but with a job like CEO of the red cross do you want someone who is competent, or someone who is willing to take the amount of money you have?

Large amounts of money does not equate to competency. There are plenty of other CEOs that have made much larger sums of money and been incompetent as well.

>$500,000 should be more than adequate to find someone who is not only competent, but also believes in the cause.

You would think that someone competent would come from the private sector and would have been successful enough that they could head the Red Cross as an act of charity and not collect a cent of salary.

It isn't like it is a job that someone can put in a few hours on a saturday afternoon for. I'd imagine the CEO of the red cross is putting in 60+ hour weeks, traveling like a mofo, etc. I don't care how wealthy you are, nobody wants to do that for free.

FUN FACT: The Red Cross is the liaison in a soldier's approval for emergency leave. Without a Red Cross message being delivered to their command, very few soldiers are allowed to take emergency leave to see a loved one. This means that the loved one must be in a medical facility or under the care of a doctor who can advise the Red Cross representative that the loved one's condition is indeed grave or serious enough to warrant the soldier's presence. I saw many soldiers with poorer families denied emergency leave because their family member could not afford to visit the hospital.

The Red Cross flat out refused to send a message without a physician's approval or direness.

CJHardin:FUN FACT: The Red Cross is the liaison in a soldier's approval for emergency leave. Without a Red Cross message being delivered to their command, very few soldiers are allowed to take emergency leave to see a loved one. This means that the loved one must be in a medical facility or under the care of a doctor who can advise the Red Cross representative that the loved one's condition is indeed grave or serious enough to warrant the soldier's presence. I saw many soldiers with poorer families denied emergency leave because their family member could not afford to visit the hospital.

The Red Cross flat out refused to send a message without a physician's approval or direness.

/just a fact

Yes because soldiers and their families will try to bs red cross messages. In this situation they should ask for a services to the armed forces representative or caseworker from the red cross....problem solved

IdBeCrazyIf:The My Little Pony Killer: I'd much rather donate my $10 directly to a family that has been affected by the tornado rather than to a "non-profit" that will pocket most of that meager amount.

Red Cross has a 92 cent to dollar ratio, actually one of the highest in the non profit world. They are the gold standard when it comes to donations going to serve the mission.

And yet I still don't want a cent of the $10 that I'm giving to FAMILIES DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE TORNADO to go to them instead. Not a single penny, not for any reason.

Does the Red Cross just not understand that this is exactly WHY people donate so much to them immediately following disasters? Because that would be where my complaints lie. The money that I am sending to aid those families is not going to those families as I assume it does when I donate, instead it gets earmarked for whatever the Red Cross decides they'd like to use it for, in their own sweet time.

my wife deployed from Boston for Hurricane Sandy relief. she was there from two days after the hurricane until early april providing support to those displaced by the storm. She also did two 3 month stints for Katrina and was on standby for the Tornadoes in OK. they sent her up to newtown after the shootings to support the site the ARC set up to provide counselling services.

The red cross volunteers bust ass to help those who need it and get bad press from people who seem to think that it is a government agency, or taxpayer funded.

They get blamed for FEMA incompetence, or criticized for using resources to improve infrasturcture so they can do a better job when the next disaster happens.

they are there every time the shiat goes down, and get crap from armchair quarterbacks.

If the Red Cross wants to be hold some money back for unplanned expenses, whatever, maybe that's a good idea. Here's my problem with Red Cross. I spent most of this past week in Moore, my dad's house was in the path of the tornado, near 149th and May Ave. If you're unfamiliar with the area, that's at the western edge of where the tornado entered Moore (that intersection is technically OKC).We saw the Salvation Army Tuesday morning. The roads were still blocked so they were dragging wheeled coolers down the street to offer us drinks and by lunch time had managed to get a van through and gave us pizza, (thanks Marco's pizza!). They were there all week, along with several small religious charities bringing drinks and food, or just offering physical labor, but we didn't see a hint of the Red Cross until lunchtime Saturday after the roads were all clear. They offered us food but we had already eaten because a boy scout, maybe 8 or 10 years old had already brought us barbecue sandwiches.

The boyscouts literally beat the Red Cross at getting any assistance to us.

Now, I realize that the Red Cross does more than hand out bottled water and sandwiches, but that's been a sore point all week, that the organization with the biggest was last one we saw.